Subject: [Ltru] Re: Archival of registration forms

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:14:21 +0200

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:07:36AM +0200,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 47 lines which said:

> 3) Modification to 4646bis, section 3.3 and 3.5 to make
> crystal-clear that IANA receives the *form*, not just the record and
> make it available, both in the registry and in a to-be-determined
> repository. (Apparently the way it was supposed to work in RFC
> 3066).

OK, since this propasal is apparently the widely-accepted one and
since David Conrad's report about IANA
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg07790.html), I
suggest the following changes to draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-05:

In section 3.3 "Maintenance of the Registry", in the paragraph which
ends with:

> Each record being modified or inserted MUST be forwarded in a
> separate message.

Add at the end: 

The Language Subtag Reviewer MUST also sends to the IANA the complete
registration form, as specified in section 3.5, for future publication
(this MAY be done by a reference to the ietf-languages archive, where
this form has been published).

In section 3.5 "Registration Procedure for Subtags", replace:

> Forward the record to be inserted or modified to [email-masked]
> according to the procedure described in Section 3.3.

by:

Forward the record to be inserted or modified, and the complete
registration form, to [email-masked] according to the procedure
described in Section 3.3.

Replace:

> All approved registration forms are available online in the
> directory http://www.iana.org/numbers.html under "languages".

by:

The approved records will appear in the Language Subtag Registry
described in section 5.1 All approved registration forms are available
online under http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/.

In section 5.1 "Language Subtag Registry", replace:

> and archiving the forwarded registration form.

by:

and archiving and making publically available the forwarded
registration form (not just the record).

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:00:40 -0700

I'd rather go the other direction and work on eliminating the rest of 
the form or putting less emphasis on it, since, sending two items to 
IANA and having them maintain them using separate processes is 
potentially cumbersome and adds no value.

As a result, I think that archiving the request forms is more-or-less a 
waste of time. The real meat of the request is the record. Hence the 
changes I made in draft-05 to require the record's complete publication 
on ietf-languages.

Note that a single record might have multiple forms associated with it.

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:06:57 -0700

Hi -

As you may recall, the archival of registration forms was explicitly
recorded as issue #989 during the discussion of what became RFC 4646.
My reading of this thread so far is that there is broad support for
continuing to make BOTH the request form and the registry records
available.  The editors need to ensure that the document reflects
this consensus.

Randy
ltru co-chair

> From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Archival of registration forms
>
...

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:35:46 +0200

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:00:40AM -0700,
 Addison Phillips <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 86 lines which said:

> As a result, I think that archiving the request forms is
> more-or-less a waste of time. The real meat of the request is the
> record.

If you follow that way (but see my other message for a discussion)
please make the posting of the final *form* on ietf-languages
mandatory and *add* something to 4646bis that requires the Comment
field to indicate the URL of the archived message.

This will not make more work for the IANA or the LSR but will allow
everyone to go from a record to the original submission.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:42:27 +0200

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:00:40AM -0700,
 Addison Phillips <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 86 lines which said:

> I'd rather go the other direction and work on eliminating the rest
> of the form or putting less emphasis on it,

It seems to me that the question was already raised
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg07751.html) and
that there was a rough consensus for the solution 3 ("Clarify that the
IANA must archived and distribute the form, not only the request").

I agree with Randy Presuhn here. It seemed to be that the issue was
settled.

> having them [the IANA] maintain them using separate processes is
> potentially cumbersome

Yes, but IANA's David Conrad expressed no remark here.

> and adds no value.

I disagree: the record in the registry is not sufficient if you did
not read the entire thread in ietf-languages. Since we now register
subtile and blurry things like variants, having the ability to go back
to the complete form, specially with its references, seem to me
mandatory for the IETF open process.

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:02:47 -0700

> field to indicate the URL of the archived message.

Randy believes there is a consensus for what you requested. I intend to 
review your suggestions and incorporate them.

Actually, I think that the "additional" information in the form is 
redundant. Fields 1 and 2 are typically part of the email sending the 
form. Items 4 through 6 are redundant information with the record or 
only modestly interesting reference material. These fields were of use 
and interesting in the 3066 era. We kind of grandfathered them into the 
form in 4646.

I already incorporated a requirement for the final form to appear on 
ietf-languages:

--
Sometimes the requested record needs to be modified as a result of 
discussion during the review period or due to requirements in this 
document. The applicant, Language Subtag Reviewer, or others are free to 
submit a modified version of the request, which will be considered in 
lieu of the original request with the explicit approval of the applicant.
--

Do you feel that this text isn't sufficiently clear that what is 
submitted is the form? I could change "requested record" to "request" in 
the first sentence and the word "request" to "form" in the second 
sentence to help that....

> everyone to go from a record to the original submission.

I think I oppose having mandatory comments, especially ones bearing URLs 
to potentially transitory message archives.

Addison

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:10:45 -0400

> potentially cumbersome and adds no value.

A unified process (IANA gets the registration form, archives it publicly,
plucks the record out and adds it to the LSR) works for me.

> changes I made in draft-05 to require the record's complete publication 

The shows records the result, and the current result only.  It does
not, as the form does, indicate *why* the change is being made.

> Note that a single record might have multiple forms associated with it.

Just so, particularly if it is modified after approval.  Keeping the
registration forms around is the only way to provide a full history of
what was decided (the email archive shows what was discussed, but is not
a usable source of what was decided).

-- 
I am expressing my opinion.  When my            John Cowan
honorable and gallant friend is called,         [email-masked]
he will express his opinion.  This is           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
the process which we call Debate.                   --Winston Churchill

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:51:07 -0700

> this form has been published).

Instead of this and following John Cowan's comment (whose sentiment I 
agree with), I rewrote the first paragraph of Section 3.3 from this:

--
Maintenance of the registry requires that as codes are assigned or 
withdrawn by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49, the Language 
Subtag Reviewer MUST evaluate each change, determine whether it 
conflicts with existing registry entries, and submit the information to 
IANA for inclusion in the registry. If a change takes place and the 
Language Subtag Reviewer does not do this in a timely manner, then any 
interested party MAY use the procedure in Section 3.5 (Registration 
Procedure for Subtags) to register the appropriate update.
--

To read:

--
<t>Maintenance of the registry requires that as codes are assigned or 
withdrawn by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49, the Language 
Subtag Reviewer MUST evaluate each change and determine the appropriate 
course of action according to the rules in this document. Usually this 
requires that the Language Subtag Reviewer fill in and submit the 
registration form found in <xref target="registrationProc" /> for the 
new or updated record. If a change to one of these standards takes place 
and the Language Subtag Reviewer does not do this in a timely manner, 
then any interested party MAY submit the form to begin the registration 
process. Thereafter the registration process continues normally.</t>
--

This makes the focus on the form (the LSR doesn't have to separately 
create one then---there is *always* a form), rather than the record. It 
also has the nice side-effect of making maintenance registrations 
consistent with all other registrations.

> described in Section 3.3.

In keeping with the above, I replaced "record" with "form".

> online under http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/.

I made these modifications.

> and archiving and making publicly available the forwarded

I made additional edits to make this happen, with explicit instructions 
to extract the record, etc.

Since the edits are in multiple places, etc., I'm running idnits, abnf 
validator, etc. and will post a new draft (-06) tomorrow. I'll also post 
the edits to inter-locale, as usual, with a link to the wdiff.